Now, maybe I didn’t have the average family, as did many others__I did have a family of immense diversity__from the lowliest uneducated farmers and housewives, to the highest educated businessmen, gentlemen, engineers, mathematicians and politicians. The main farm I was raised on even had its own black-smith shop, complete with forge and foundry, to make all the tools, machinery and implements needed for our farm, and many others around the area. Gramps was the educated patriarch of the family, with more than a few college educated children, grand-children and great-grand-children college educated and not. Even some of the in-laws were highly educated, and of course some not at all, as there were also uneducated farmers and housewives amongst them. Now, as you may well imagine, this was quite an eclectic bunch of drastically different personality people, all trying to assimilate to some form of family function. Of course not all mentioned lived on this single farm, but were all often visiting members of gramps’ and great-gramps’ families__as gramps and great gramps were of unrelated families, yet of the same contemporary generation, since gramps married the maid of his family business enterprises, who was the young daughter of great-grand-dad__as gramps' wife had died giving birth to her 11th child. Grammy was the only person able to reach gramps, and bring him out of his depression, of losing his childhood sweetheart wife in childbirth, after a long hard year of deep mourning. Anyway, I mention this as it seems quite important for shaping gramps into the great humanitarian he became, after the death of his first wife__where he would go on to not only build major business enterprises, in several diverse fields, but also to take the time to become a very effective politician, and to educate most every family member, to, or at least near, his level of knowledge proficiency__as only he had the patience to do so__which also included my mother, father, sisters, brother and myself__along with the majority of the greater family members, also…
As my father was the wild-card_the black-sheep_of this massive extended family, he had to be the rebel, and quit school in the 8th grade__but couldn’t escape being educated by all the close influences around him, and actually took to self-educating himself, all through the years of his life, to keep up with his highly educated mathematically and medically inclined wife, and finally end as a full-fledged inventor and engineer__himself. In fact, of all the highly educated family members, only gramps and dad, would I grant the level of knowledge proficiency being achieved, above that of all the other college educated family members__even of the several other PhD’s in our family__so this always gave me a unique perspective about academics and common sense, in general. I always saw common sense and kindness trumping academics__as the number one necessary influence of an educated life__as I never met two wiser men than my grandfather and my father__one having a Ph.D. education, and his and his second wife’s son, my father, having an 8th grade education, and one day of high-school, whose mother was originally the 1st family’s maid, until she married gramps, 30 years her senior…
Now, many would say; “Well no wonder you witnessed so much family conflict…”__but that wouldn’t be true either, as I saw this same family conflict in every other family I ever got to know, well enough to know and see it. We weren’t special in the human conflict department of families, by any means. We were actually quite in the lesser end of the family conflict arena, as near as I could tell__but it was still far more than my young mind cared for, when I was such a tender aged child__as seeing my younger sister in tears, more times than I care to remember, was not a pretty picture to me__and this was over woman to woman conflict, or I should say, mother to daughter conflict__while I was treated like a King__Why…? This would take many years for my young mind to solve, as it would all the many other family, relatives, friends and acquaintance conflicts I witnessed, at these young ages, and as time would tell, all the rest of my life. “Why were humans so cruel to each other?__I just had to know…!”__While the wild animals, and even the insects, were so kind and even extremely co-operative, as I witnessed with ant and bee colonies__as compared to human collectives…
I don’t know, but maybe I had a starting advantage on others in understanding this deep personal conflict between like and diverse groups of human beings. Gramps, mother, father, friends and others always taught me as much as they knew, that is as I asked about anyway, and I had early on developed the innate curiosity to ask many questions of anyone I knew and met, who always seemed to answer my quests__and of course this had started with my two grandfathers, one educated and one not__but both willing to share all he knew with my young soul. And this same privilege extended to most all my other relatives and friends__then extended into school with certain other students, whose parents had taught them far beyond what that particular education system was offering__But, none of this help offered the deep interest and quest in personal humanity I shared with my deep investigating self. Every time I entered these deepest of areas quests with others, it always seemed to short out into some personal answer they had learned, and not discovered for themselves__as my feelings always rejected their answers as not being that deeper or deepest answer I was always seeking__and this didn’t seem to matter how educated or not, they were, and some of the closest to my ideas, actually came from many throughout my life, that were not educated, as their kindness had granted them a personal perspective into their own quite deep inner sanctums. Still, from the earliest ages to my ripe age of 66, I’ve yet to meet or read anyone with that all deepest of questions’ answers I’ve sought since childhood__at least to my satisfaction__and don’t kid yourself, as I’ve met and talked to many thousands throughout my life, and thoroughly read many thousands more__from the earliest Chinese, Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, Indians, etc., on and on__to the most present of logical, mathematical, scientific, philosophical and humanist of pre-modern and modern of thinkers possible for one mind to take in, in one lifetime__as it’s been a constant quest for me, all my life…
So, let me get to the meat of the matter; “How does thought, think about thinking…?” “Am I only ‘thought’ thinking about my own thinking…?” “Am I the thought-gap in my thinking, between other thoughts…?” “If I may be only the thought-gap, then am I nothing but space…?” “If I am nothing but space, am I nothing more than a field-continuum space…?” “If I am a continuum field-space, then am I a micro-field space, within the greater continuum field-space…?” “Am I nothing more than a field within a field, acting within and with the bio-agents of my body, interacting with its own bio-neuronal agency of some greater field-network of more inter-connected nerve synapses, called brain to mind interactions…?” “And, since Einstein stated ‘All is field, everywhere’, am I a non-deterministic quantum state evolved into a ball of free-will uniformity, shedding my randomness through self-control, in the path from my fundamental quantum states of randomness, to final uniformity as finished human product, from its initial rock sources…?” Am I, as Charles Sanders Peirce stated; “Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself", that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism." Now, can this highly complex paragraph by Peirce answer some of my above questions…? I am going to state that; “Iff you take the time to fully contemplate, exactly what Peirce is here stating, you can answer the question; ‘What is thought, thinking about thinking, with…?" If you may have read these three; Kant, Heisenberg or Heidegger__you may have come across similar statements about how our ‘intuition space’, or what I have referred to as the gap being the field-continuum, you may notice the almost exact similarities of these three thinkers with that of Peirce__where they also mention ideas about space__or intuitive space, as the same…
Now, the question becomes; “How can I make this plainer to you, so you may see it is the very answer to the fundamental problem of people treating people unjustly and unkindly__and only it is__as originally asked in the beginning of this story…?”__As per this question; “Why was the world of nature so exquisitely perfect, and yet the world of man so fraught with problems…?” This may be quite a task__a huge task__as it involves the entire history in ‘Inference Mechanics’, from the earliest of thinkers, to the most modern__trying to solve the epistemic gaps in our vast knowledge systems, which is actually no more than the gaps between our concepts, interacting with, within and between each and another… I do not intend to make it any more complex than it’s already been explained by Peirce’s complexity, and C. I. Lewis’ much more easily understood simplicity and clarity method, of stating the same as Peirce, with different language and ideation__yet I’ll try to fill in the missing pieces to make it even more plain, clear and simple__as it’s nothing more than the ‘missing mind mechanics’, that have made us all act bad__when its truths could have allowed us to act good, had we but known it’s truths’ mechanics of ‘modal feelings and emotions’, to our physical actions’ much more ordered and better 'Possibilities...'
Let’s look at Peirce’s above statement, and see if we can parse it into a much clearer and simpler understanding. Above I’ve used the term; ‘Inference Mechanics’, as that’s what ‘concept mechanics’ has been named since its inception in antiquity, by most every ancient culture who studied the mind deeply, no matter who or where__and is exactly what Peirce expressed in his above paragraph. I'd also like to here enter another of Peirce's clear statements; "The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its passports at both those two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason.” Now, by adhering to the original terms, we avoid all the unnecessary confusions and conflations of ideas and ideations pertaining to this simple, yet highly over-complexified subject__in the history of the world. This is simply about perception, and abstracting that perception out of our subjective emotions and intellects, and into our objective emotions and intellects__to achieve rational understanding of our primitive feelings and visions of the real external and real internal worlds__one inanimate and one of animate and innate quality, when viewed with proper categories and concepts. As you’ve probably noticed, I’ve stated both subjective and objective emotions and intellect__as ‘conceptual inference mechanics’, and in order for it to be fully functioning and true, must process both the subjective and objective completely, to finally understand how humanity with humanity, really functions, and or can function, esthetically valid to our deepest wishes, of best ordered states, of highest ordered states of a new and true moral justice, for the highest numbers of Earth’s citizens__possible. That may seem like a tall order, bordering on the sycophantic utopias of ‘laughed at times and ideas’ of the past__but think again__this is new and revolutionary discovery of pure thought mechanics__best represented by Peirce’s discovery of the 3rd branch of logic__‘Abduction’__which allows this deepest of levels of personal and logical thinking...
Oh, I hear many of you screaming already__“That doesn’t work. It’s been tried and proven a failure, already…” No… I’m here to tell you it’s simply the anti-philosophers and thinkers who lack the understanding necessary to understand ‘Abduction’, whose understanding doesn’t understand ‘Modal Logic’__and because they do not understand our fundamental ‘Natural Modal Logic’__they also fail to understand strong ‘Modal Abduction…’ This simply makes these false sycophants and pretenders to knowledge, nothing but ‘anti-modal fools’ of what we’d really consider true, valid and fully quantified modal logical knowledge__in the real world. Sad to say, that these anti-modal sycophants have been ruling the academic roosts of the world’s institutions, over the last 60+ years__and this is the sole reason humanism has been divorced from science and academics__leaving the world with the criminalized secular nonsense destroying, what could otherwise be a new renaissance in humanistic expansionary seeding and growing__with ‘Modal Humanism’ and ‘Abduction’ leading the way into a new era of true human values being re-entered into our sad world’s state of present affairs. It’s long overdue we learn the truth of our ancient philosophies of true and profound, yet simple ‘Inference Mechanics’__and an ‘inference mechanics’ that includes our historically cherished evolutionary human moral-justice values__our real intellectual soul’s foundation in historical habitual objective emotional experience…
You may ask why I’ve mentioned objective emotional experience as our foundational base of values__think about it__Is there something preventing you of recognizing the greater capacity of your basic emotions and feelings of modally acting objectively as well as subjectively_or vice versa…? No, there certainly is not__As a matter of fact, you are only crippling yourself, if you are not using both sides of your full human capacity to process your experiences, and it’s simply the process of recognizing the fact that base feelings and emotions are capable of being processed through our ‘inference mechanics’ both subjectively and objectively. We process subjectively when we want our judgments to feel about our ideas, and we process objectively when we want our judgments to rationalize about our ideas, as many situations of our human experiences necessitate both states at different times__and sometimes both at once__for our lives to have true feeling and meaning, with full understanding of our own and others’ feelings, and also the necessities of ours, others’ and the world’s truly rational actions. I don’t know about you, but I intend to keep processing with both sides of my mind, as I’ve never had any trouble doing so__and only feel sorry for those who try and improperly discriminate science against humanism, as do all too many anti-modal sycophants in this far too crass and mean modern world__They should learn the powers of the new modal humanism springing forth, in our present modally logical pragmatic world, being enhanced and sped forth, by the semantic web and the internet’s many free-wills. I kind of doubt they can hold back the rising tide…
Let’s look at this effective ‘modal inference mechanics’ a bit deeper, especially as ‘abduction’ is explicated within its mechanics. The ‘knowledge gaps’ already mentioned have posed problems for philosophy and its epistemic studies for millennia__this is nothing new, but what is new is the fact within__that ‘modal inference mechanics’ can solve these ‘knowledge gaps’ and actually fill in all of Kant’s ‘thing in itself’ missing pieces. Yes, that’s exactly what I said__solve all the empty problems created by Kant’s ‘ding an sich’ unknowns, as there really are no unknowns__of true general importance to us, as human beings trying to survive this massive world of modern confusion and false conflation. You could say Plato and Aristotle started this ‘ding an sich’ myth with falsely thinking ‘rationality’ needed to be grounded in ‘God’, then others such as Kant and Hegel tried to avoid grounding in the effable ‘God’ by developing ‘ding an sich’ for Kant and ‘notion’ for Hegel__which is really still ‘God’ with a new name. Then of course there’s the idealistic ‘phenomenon’ for some, and the ‘epiphenomenal given’ for still others, or ‘epiphenomenal energy’ for still others__until finally Quantum Mechanics learned a true grounding could be achieved in the real world, and particle-wave physics, in the pure randomness and indeterminacy of its fundamental mechanics understandings, within ‘Statistical Mechanics’ solving for ‘Probability Mechanics’, or even indiscernibles(where measurements are above and or below/exceed our Planck scale capacities to measure), of the ‘absolute fundamental substance’__simply meaning there exists nothing more fundamental than the ‘absolute fundamental’, even if we can’t fully define or measure it__its generality is still the ‘absolute fundamental state of substance’ no matter what it turns out to be finally named__as modal necessity requires it to absolutely, fundamentally exist, as is already proven by R. Barcan’s modal logic necessity formulas and proofs of the `40’s. Anyway, this allows us to have an absolute grounding for science in its true ground of our real World and Universe, when these ‘absolute fundamental substance’ particle-waves combinatorially add up to our Universe’s well known and obviously existing general uniformity__we all see, when we simply look. I’d simply refer the reader to C. I. Lewis’ excellent book; ‘Mind And The World Order’ for further well explained and explicated ideas of the above, as relates back to C. S. Peirce, and to H. R. Fischer’s; ‘Abductive Reasoning as a Way of Worldmaking’ for his excellent explication of Peirce’s ‘Abduction…’
As to putting all this into simple common sense words all can easily understand__”I can think and feel any way I choose about the world__I’m a free-willed human being, but, if I want a better world, I best advise myself, I’d better pay close attention to how I use my personal to intellectual thoughts, ideas, judgments and ideations of my world__if I care to make a better world__as careless thinking can only further destroy our world.” I full well realize my subjective and objective feelings and intellectual mathematics, rationality and logic can all be easily and fully processed through my fundamental ‘inference mechanics’ and that my third branch of logic__‘Abduction’__is simply my ‘Method of Hypothesis’ for science, and my deep personal ‘Re-Thinking of Thoughts’ is the same, for my personal feelings’ world__where I can solve all those seeming oh-so-hard emotional problems, etc., and even many of the hard science problems, if I but open my eyes to all these simple ‘inference mechanics’ uses, and simply understand which modal direction I wish to process my information toward__The psychological emotional, or the logical intellectual__and fully learn not to conflate or confuse the two, as they are simply separate desires. ‘Inference Mechanics’ is nothing more than our ‘Base Knowledge Mechanics’__‘What I Can See, I Can Know’__"And, We Can See All Our Inferences Very Clearly, When We But Look, Even The First Inferences 'The World First Infers'__When We All First Opened Our Eyes And Minds, As Children…"
Finally, don’t let me forget to mention the all so important a/estheticians, or better known as the German humanists, as no logic and science functions properly without their necessary marriage with esthetics__no matter how much others think it does__It does not. From Baumgarten, who’s all importance to Kant’s ‘Third Critique of Judgment’ can’t afford to be left out, as Kant’s ideas would never have gained traction without Baumgarten’s esthetic influences__and the later esthetically influenced German humanists would maybe never have existed without Baumgarten’s original work and influence. Goethe, Schiller, Herbart and Steiner, etc., may have just been minor footnotes in history, if not for Baumgarten’s mastery of the esthetic nature of humanity, being spread wide by Kant’s system__so, when you may start to frown upon the mathematicians, scientists and logicians like Kant, Peirce, Lewis, Barcan and such others, don’t forget it was his massive influence that helped spread the popularity of German a/esthetic humanism, and its major influence on Peirce’s logic, which later influenced Lewis, Barcan and many other moderns__to possibly allow humanity’s return to ‘Humanity’s Humanness…’
And again from Peirce: “Two things here are all-important to assure oneself of and to remember. The first is that a person is not absolutely an individual. His thoughts are what he is "saying to himself", that is, is saying to that other self that is just coming into life in the flow of time. When one reasons, it is that critical self that one is trying to persuade; and all thought whatsoever is a sign, and is mostly of the nature of language. The second thing to remember is that the man's circle of society (however widely or narrowly this phrase may be understood), is a sort of loosely compacted person, in some respects of higher rank than the person of an individual organism." Imo, this is the most important message to thoroughly know and understand__in all its potential QM implications...
Also: Abduction Link...
(Click to enlarge... Peirce's inference mechanics paragraph, as explained by Lefebvre, in graphic form...)
